beta
Text
1. Defendant C, D, E, and F jointly share KRW 6,350,240 with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from October 1, 2019 to October 20, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Building Hho (hereinafter “instant building”) from Defendant E and F, and resided in the instant building from August 28, 2016.
On June 1, 2019, around 19:20, the Plaintiff lost food for about 20 minutes as it was used in the hot water season (I.S. J. hereinafter “the instant hot water season”) to use hot water in the toilets of the instant building.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) imported the instant hot water machine and sold it to Defendant C. Defendant C sold the instant hot water machine to Defendant D, E, and F, and installed it in the toilet of the instant building.
Defendant E and F are the owners of G building who leased the instant building to the Plaintiff, and Defendant D is the persons who managed G building with the delegation of Defendant E and F.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A 2 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 12, and 4 as well as the entire purport of the pleadings and arguments, it can be acknowledged that the accident of this case occurred since all of the hot water exhausters were installed in the contact with the wall landfill site, even though they should be installed in the contact with the wall landfill site.
B. 1) The Plaintiff, as to Defendant B, has a defect in the hot water season of this case imported by Defendant B, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Product Liability Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant accident occurred due to a defect in the hot water season of this case (the instant accident was installed in the connection with the instant hot water season of this case as seen earlier).
(2) The Defendant B’s liability for damages cannot be recognized. (3) The evidence No. 12 against the Defendant C.